> > > > > > --- "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe it would be less offensive if that idea were just > > > > left unsaid and they got on with the usual acceptance > > > > of life responsibilities, difficulties, disappointments. > > > > But that is a more Buddhist approach, and they are Hindu. > > --- "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > I have never been part of MD. But, I actually think MD is a good thing for > some people and all that meditation helps the world. I am not at all > convinced that life on MD is without responsibilities, difficulties etc. In > fact, I know a few women there who have struggled with various issues, > including depression. > > I am rather sensitive to people using the Nature excuse to justify > difficulties. Used to drive me crazy years ago. Still gets under my skin. > Perhaps it is true, but it rubs me the wrong way, and imo, promotes exactly > the kind of thinking the Barry has objected to - magical thinking without > consequences. In the above statement I made I was thinking specifically of > the letter about Heavenly Mountain. I find it makes me feel more supportive > of things like MD if they would just say, "We, like everyone else from time > to time, made a mistake on this, and we are moving on. We will be more > careful next time, but some things just cannot be controlled no matter how > well you plan." How difficult is that to do? > > Here is a situation in which I am much more sympathetic to someone's use of > the "Nature is deciding and doing it all for the best:" if someone loses a > loved one in a tragedy, or if someone is experiencing a serious illness or > pain. If these folks are helped by justifying the difficulties of life with > a Nature rationale, go for it. But the MD thing seemed to be a cop out and a > way to avoid reality. This is all my issue - I get that MD fully believes > this and so they write it.
Nature "decides" by brutal natural selection. No evidence that it's doing it for all the best if you read a little history. Just meaningless deadly dance of duality. > >--- turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I am neither Susan nor a mother (to the best of my > > knowledge), but I'll answer, if you don't mind. > > > > > Nabby is right. We should have compassion for these > > women, who (as Nabby points out), of their own volition > > have chosen to live a life in which they don't have to > > work, if you don't count having to become professional > > beggars, writing endless letters and emails to the > > supporters who pay their bills for them. I am sure > > that a few of the MD "ladies" (and their male counter- > > parts in Purusha) came from money and are self-sustaining, > > but the people I'm in contact with from the TMO assure me > > that most are not, and more closely fit my description > > above. > > > > And why *shouldn't* they live like this? What they do > > -- meditating several hours a day, writing jingles > > for Maharishi Vedic Honey, and wearing saris -- is > > just SO much more important than the things their > > financial supporters do. The supporters should be > > happy that they have been asked to participate in the > > collective darshan of MD's good works. > > > > After all, isn't this the lifestyle that Nabby himself > > pursued for some time, on Purusha? (Without the sari, > > of course...one hopes.) > > > > How one feels about this lifestyle is a personal thing, > > and a matter of individual ethics. I'm not real fond > > of it, whether the professional beggars be MD, or > > Purusha, or even my former best friend, who has not > > held an actual job for almost 30 years now, allowing > > others to pay his way in life instead. > > > > Being sort of an amateur religious sociologist, I've > > investigated a shitload of religions, spiritual trad- > > itions, and cults. In my opinion, the healthiest of > > them were the ones in which no one was ever allowed > > to subsist "on the kindness of strangers," Blanche > > DuBois-style. Instead, they had real professions or > > trades, and paid their own ways in life doing some- > > thing that didn't require them to beg for a living. > > > > I'm not convinced that the beggar-recluse lifestyle > > is a healthy one for anyone, in any tradition. ANY > > tradition, including Buddhist monks who live the > > same way. If seekers are physically able to work to > > pay for their own lives, it seems to me healthier > > for them to do so than to become beggars. YMMV. > > Well, I do think there are some people who might do well in a cloistered life > and be more productive as a result. There are people who don't fit in > elsewhere, and then those who are pretty obsessed with thoughts of god and > such. Or real introverts. They might contribute more in the way of daily > productive work if in a protected and structured life. Kind of like being in > the army, but substituting praying and contemplation for the fight training. > Some people do so well in the army and never function well in real life. > > >
